Is Gov Supplied Universal Income An Inevitability?

9,873 Views | 61 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Golem
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEAR RAMMAGE said:

Any time you take away incentives for work, you end up with a disaster.

Competition is in our blood.

We are not all equal. We don't all work equally as hard.

This is why communism and socialism fail.
If you had only a "basic income," would you quit working hard to get more?

Giving someone a benefit that is reduced when they earn income is a disincentive to work. We have a lot of that in the system right now. A benefit that is not reduced by working would not automatically be a disincentive to work hard. Competition is in our blood, so one would expect we would keep working, and working hard, if we only had a "basic income."
Boatshoes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not that concerned about AI. In the end, AI isn't. The difference between sentience and machine is the former can rewrite its own code. Even Pavlov's dog. A Roomba is never going to figure out what your general contractor changed in your remodeling project.

The problem we have is a violated social contract. By exporting our manufacturing jobs wholesale we made entire sectors of our population marginally employable by forcing them into low paying service sector jobs or into low level on-site managerial positions for which they are ill equipped.

The failed public school system is turning out marginally functional automatons who have little ability to think for themselves, apply logic, or reason, or adapt to their surroundings. Business responds with an increasingly bureaucratic approach which attempts to micromanage the actions of its employees.

If you are an automaton, then yes... Your livelihood is under immediate threat.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Applemac_G4 said:

I'm not that concerned about AI. In the end, AI isn't. The difference between sentience and machine is the former can rewrite its own code. Even Pavlov's dog. A Roomba is never going to figure out what your general contractor changed in your remodeling project.

The problem we have is a violated social contract. By exporting our manufacturing jobs wholesale we made entire sectors of our population marginally employable by forcing them into low paying service sector jobs or into low level on-site managerial positions for which they are ill equipped.

The failed public school system is turning out marginally functional automatons who have little ability to think for themselves, apply logic, or reason, or adapt to their surroundings. Business responds with an increasingly bureaucratic approach which attempts to micromanage the actions of its employees.

If you are an automaton, then yes... Your livelihood is under immediate threat.
They aren't testing AI on Roombas. It is being tested on supercomputers. The problem recently with Facebook's new AI is that it started to use it's own language by itself that the developers did not understand and that was serious enough to pull the plug. AI will happen eventually. The question is what will it's thoughts be on it's creators?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OP = Is universal income inevitable?

I hope not because if it could work then welfare would have corrected the problems it set out to fix, and not made everything so much worse like it has

Something for nothing does not build character
Boatshoes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
True, but supercomputers are after all, computers. More doesn't mean different.

As far as the facebook AI, it was merely assembling the English words it had been programmed to use. In no way was it communicating in a new unknown to its creators language.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

OP = Is universal income inevitable?

I hope not because if it could work then welfare would have corrected the problems it set out to fix, and not made everything so much worse like it has

Something for nothing does build character


We all get air to breathe. Would paying for it build our character? (I am assuming you meant to say does not build character).

I do not know your personal religion, but Christianity is, at a basic level, based on something for nothing. I would argue that receiving that does build character.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Applemac_G4 said:

True, but supercomputers are after all, computers. More doesn't mean different.

As far as the facebook AI, it was merely assembling the English words it had been programmed to use. In no way was it communicating in a new unknown to its creators language.


The supercomputers I would say are different than a Roomba. The Facebook AI may have been re-assembling English words, but it was enough to spook the researchers. Again, I do believe true AI is coming and will be something to keep an eye on.
3ptSpecialist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't read every post here so I apologize if this has been covered...

Just finished "The Second Machine Age" written by an MIT think tank guy and a research scientist on digital economics.

They are big proponents of negative income taxes like bularry mentioned.

The good news for them is all the latest research shows that humans working with robots is far more effective than robots or humans acting alone.

They give an example of 2 amateur chess players using 3 computers and whipped the computer and Grandmaster chess players opposing them.

They have lots of other examples. Great read if you want to dive more into this topic. I've read a lot on this topic and these two are far more rational, informed and optimistic about the future than other authors.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dependency on AI and/or dependency on a few people to pay the masses is all too much headed to the Medieval class structure that collapsed in the face of adversity.

BearN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

nein51 said:

It's not a certainty as there is no hope the funding for it would get passed right now.

It works (and well) in places like Denmark and Sweden but those countries have incredibly high taxes and relatively small populations.

I can't even imagine how high the tax rate would have to go to fund it in a country our size but it would be an astronomical raise probably close to 50% for all earners (not just the 55% who currently pay taxes - which is another discussion entirely).

Having lived outside the US for many years I can say I saw good and bad in the different variations.

I suspect we would end up much like England where the NHS is essentially for the poor and lower middle class and anyone with ANY means buys private health insurance.

Thanks for weighing in, good perspective.

Wasn't trying to have a thread about the merits or lack thereof of gov supplied income, more about how we have a job based economic system in a world where jobs will only be decreasing and the population will only be increasing barring government intervention. At some point it is unsustainable, no?

What if we don't need taxes like we have b/c automation is taking over for the human labor the taxes paid for? What if we shift from a theory of the more you work/consume the happier you are (despite objective health measures that say otherwise) to a theory where you live simply off what automation supplies and spend the bulk of your life bettering yourself vs. working for money? Kinda out there given what we are conditioned to believe I know, but I don't see any other way. Would love to be convinced otherwise.


The low level jobs being taken by robots are largely from undereducated people who are leaning on the taxpayer anyway. It mostly nets out
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just caught episode 1 on ONDEMAND two nights ago, but will watch all of them. Obviously as the resident "futurist" here, I was fascinated by the episode as it talked about my/oxdeadbeef (computer programmer who posted on first page of thread) concerns we previously mentioned how EVERYTHING will be changing.

If you have any interest in the topic beyond supporting some pre-conceived partisan supported position as some have done on this thread already, give it a watch. Very interesting!

National Geographic "Year Million" Not technically "year million", they are just referencing a near future time where AI/automation is more advanced than it is atm.

Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEAR RAMMAGE said:

Any time you take away incentives for work, you end up with a disaster.

Competition is in our blood.

We are not all equal. We don't all work equally as hard.

This is why communism and socialism fail.
Can't really argue with any of that and agree with it using a past "job based consumption is rewarded/celebrated economic environment", but what you are missing, especially on the last point, is that they didn't have the "X-factor" we will have, which is full blown automation. Not technology HELPING humans, technology REPLACING humans in vast swaths(meaning you are not counting on a small % of humans to support a majority of humans like you were doing in your failed examples. That is a MASSIVE difference). That is a huge x-factor that makes talking point anecdotes like what you have provided null and void IMO.
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

National Geographic "Year Million"

Going further, an interesting spin off topic from this show is how AI impacts organized religion going forward positively or negatively.

I say this b/c of 2 things they talked about in the 1st episode. In part of the show they go to a fictional situation where a young couple loses a daughter in a MVC IIRC, and the couple upon realizing her death at the MVC scene, decide to have AI capture her experiences/personality and program it into an android and they live on with their daughter that way. Further, it appears in the 2nd episode they will discuss living forever through AI.

Anyway, thought some might find that interesting and curious people's opinions on the possibilities.
Funky Town Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

Any time you take away incentives for work, you end up with a disaster.

Competition is in our blood.

We are not all equal. We don't all work equally as hard.

This is why communism and socialism fail.
Can't really argue with any of that and agree with it using a past "job based consumption is rewarded/celebrated economic environment", but what you are missing, especially on the last point, is that they didn't have the "X-factor" we will have, which is full blown automation. Not technology HELPING humans, technology REPLACING humans in vast swaths(meaning you are not counting on a small % of humans to support a majority of humans like you were doing in your failed examples. That is a MASSIVE difference). That is a huge x-factor that makes talking point anecdotes like what you have provided null and void IMO.


You're also assuming that that portion of the economy won't be replaced by something we can't see today. Blacksmiths probably didn't worry about cars. If you are a person of faith, God told us we will work the earth. How does that play into this idea as well?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

Any time you take away incentives for work, you end up with a disaster.

Competition is in our blood.

We are not all equal. We don't all work equally as hard.

This is why communism and socialism fail.
Can't really argue with any of that and agree with it using a past "job based consumption is rewarded/celebrated economic environment", but what you are missing, especially on the last point, is that they didn't have the "X-factor" we will have, which is full blown automation. Not technology HELPING humans, technology REPLACING humans in vast swaths(meaning you are not counting on a small % of humans to support a majority of humans like you were doing in your failed examples. That is a MASSIVE difference). That is a huge x-factor that makes talking point anecdotes like what you have provided null and void IMO.
You still need humans to update, maintain and create new Technology.

Technology usually ends up creating more jobs than replacing them. Research by economists shows technology has created more jobs than it's destroyedand they have 140 years of data to prove it.

Data complied by management consultants Deloitte from the census data for England and Wales stretching back to 1871 suggest that the growth of jobs in the creative, care, tech and business service industries have more than offset the loss of jobs in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

The X factor is income inequality, which will widen as economies increasingly reward high level education and skills that can service a high-tech society.

So my original comment still applies. Essentially what we need to worry about is our failing education and cultures which perpetuate laziness, coddling.
Nguyen One Soon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Description of the factory of the future, which I first heard several years ago. There will be a machine, a man and a dog. The machine is there to do the work, the man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to make sure the man does not touch the machine.

Jobs will evolve, and much work will be less physically demanding. Someone already mentioned blacksmiths. At one time there were paid crossing guards at many railroad crossings. My first paid job was picking cotton at two cents per pound.

Thank goodness I am retired now. I think my daughter will be okay in her profession, but I worry for her children.
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funky Town Bear said:





You're also assuming that that portion of the economy won't be replaced by something we can't see today. Blacksmiths probably didn't worry about cars. If you are a person of faith, God told us we will work the earth. How does that play into this idea as well?
I don't believe I am assuming that, in fact I have been on record as stating AI of today WILL create new jobs we don't have atm. Where we might disagree is the ratio at which those will be created vs. what will be taken away. I have seen it prognosticated as 1:50 (for every one new job created 50 will be lost) to 1:2 and everywhere in between. Geneva conference in 2016 said 2.1 million:7.1 million (created:lost). Obviously these are all estimates and reserve the right to updated.

What do you think the ratio will be to back up your statement?

As for your last point, that is a good one! Not sure what cave dweller's who didn't know where the sun went at night 2,000 years ago have to do with prognosticating technological advances of today but it is an interesting point. We also must remember, biblically, that work was not a reward given to us, it was a punishment. Which is kind of odd to me why traditional talking point Republican ideologies hold so hard to "work" given how we as a party parade under the Christian flag. We have the possibly to eschew "work" for more important daily work, like witnessing to others, or being a better husband/wife/father/mother/community serviceman/woman, right? Yet not one Christian on this thread has brought up that possibility, its all been about the ingrained virtues of work in a partisan "we were right and they were wrong" way IMO. Interesting.
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEAR RAMMAGE said:


You still need humans to update, maintain and create new Technology.

Technology usually ends up creating more jobs than replacing them. Research by economists shows technology has created more jobs than it's destroyedand they have 140 years of data to prove it.

Data complied by management consultants Deloitte from the census data for England and Wales stretching back to 1871 suggest that the growth of jobs in the creative, care, tech and business service industries have more than offset the loss of jobs in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

Currently, yes. But again, you are taking what has happened in the past as being a static guide for today. If the computing power stayed static across generations, I would completely agree with you. But it obviously doesn't and human intelligence is NOT keeping up with AI. I suggest you look into the term "singularity" if you are not familiar with it b/c your posts elude you are not familiar.

Quote:

The X factor is income inequality, which will widen as economies increasingly reward high level education and skills that can service a high-tech society.
I agree income inequality will be a HUGE issue going forward, however not an x-factor like self learning AI is today as income inequality is not unique to our little slice of history like a super computing assistant in the pocket of your pants is unique to our generation. Those with funds will get more funds using AI to their advantage, the vast swath that doesn't have access will get further behind as a result.

As a side, I think another x-factor here that might help the 1% is they can employ AI for protection that the monarchs in the French Revolution couldn't use (for example).

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Volunteer said:

PTGHUNTER said:



When that day comes is that not when we all join Star Fleet and boldly go where no man has gone before?
I definitely want a phaser.
I'm building my own photon torpedoes.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thought this was a good read that tried to address the issue from both sides. In short, 7.5 million retail jobs (3.5 million cashier) are at "high risk of computerization" based on a recent analysis by Cornerstone Capital. These are often low educated minority workers who do not have great means (intellectually or financially)for further education and will need means for survival.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/16/retail-industry-cashier-jobs-technology-unemployment

"The day before a fully automated grocery store opened its doors in 1939, the inventor Clarence Saunders took out a full page advertisement in the Memphis Press-Scimitar warning "old duds" with "cobwebby brains" to keep away. The Keedoozle, with its glass cases of merchandise and high-tech system of circuitry and conveyer belts, was cutting edge for the era and only those "of spirit, of understanding" should dare enter.

Inside the gleaming Tennessee store, shoppers inserted a key into a slot below their chosen items, producing a ticker tape list that, when fed into a machine, sent the goods traveling down a conveyer belt and into the hands of the customer. "People could just get what they want boom, it comes out and move on," recalled Jim Riot, 75, who visited the store as a child. "It felt like it was The Jetsons."
Despite Saunders's best efforts, the Keedoozle's circuits frequently failed and the store closed for good by 1949.
But 72 years after he attempted to patent his idea, advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and other technologies are making the dream of a worker-free store a reality. AndAmerican cashiers may soon be checking out.
A recent analysis by Cornerstone Capital Group suggests that 7.5m retail jobs the most common type of job in the country are at "high risk of computerization", with the 3.5m cashiers likely to be particularly hard hit.
Another report, by McKinsey, suggests that a new generation of high tech grocery stores that automatically charge customers for the goods they take no check-out required and use robots for inventory and stocking could reduce the number of labor hours needed by nearly two-thirds. It all translates into millions of Americans' jobs under threat.
Alfredo Duran, a 37-year-old New Yorker, has been staring down that threat. He began his retail career at the Gap, taking part in that quintessential American rite of passage: getting a summer job in high school. Twenty-one years later after a career that took him from fast fashion chains to department stores to high-end boutiques and saw him climb the ladder from cashier to visual merchandiser to store manager he's looking for a way out.
"Retail used to be a career," Duran said. "You actually sat with your store manager and told them, 'This is where I see myself in five years.' No one thinks like that anymore. It's just a warm body who can pick up the clothes that were thrown on the floor."
Duran takes pride in the level of the customer service he provides shoppers, but he's not convinced that his skills will be sought after in the stores of the future, so he's exploring going to work in the hotel industry. "It may be good for people that are going into technology," he said of the onset of automation, "but what about people like myself who are not very technical?"
For all Donald Trump's talk about the raw deal that has been visited on American workers, he rarely mentions people like Duran.
The public debate about jobs in the US has been dominated by Trump's fixation with a particular vision of masculine, blue collar employment: a white man in a hard hat, mining coal in Appalachia or clocking hours on an assembly line in the industrial midwest. But for years, the employment impact of those industries has been dwarfed by the retail sector, which surpassed manufacturing's total employment in 2002 and now accounts for about 10% of the entire working population, or 16 million people.[url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/16/retail-industry-cashier-jobs-technology-unemployment#img-2][/url]
"Coal miners have gotten a lot of attention, but dislocation of retail is just getting started. It's not localized; it's ubiquitous," said Mark Cohen, director of retail studies at Columbia Business School. "This is a crisis that doesn't have any solutions at the moment and that is yet to run its course."
Advertisement

The suburban shopping malls that hollowed out main streets in the 1970s and 80s have increasingly become hollow shells themselves, and more closures are expected. Headlines about America's most recognized brands Sears, Macy's, RadioShack, Payless Shoes have been dominated by store closings and bankruptcies. Credit Suisse has projected that 8,640 stores will close in 2017, easily surpassing the rate of closures during the great recession.
The fallout from the impending crisis will likely be felt most by a different population from Trump's fetishized ideal of the white, male worker. According to the Cornerstone report, 73% of cashiers are women. And an analysis of retail workers by Demos found that black people and Latinos are overrepresented in the cashier positions, which are the lowest paid.
Seattle offers a glimpse of the store of the future. Amazon's experimental convenience store in the city has eliminated the entire checkout process erasing the need for cashiers. Customers at Amazon Go just grab what they want and walk out, with charges automatically sent to their Amazon Prime accounts.
The store, which is currently only open to Amazon employees, seems to have been designed with a defense of its job-killing potential in mind. Rather than using the store windows to show off merchandise, Amazon has put the employees that do work there as sales associates and cooks on display. Imagine Macy's Christmas window decorations but instead of seeing a magical winter wonderland, passersby look into an employee break area, with its industrial furniture and government-mandated notices.
The message seems clear: don't worry, people are still employed here.
But whatever comfort may come from watching a real live human being spread mustard on a sandwich or recline on a sofa has not prevented Amazon from being tagged as all four horsemen of the retail jobs apocalypse.
A spokesperson for Amazon said in a statement that the company had "no plans" to use its Amazon Go technology to get rid of cashiers at the 465 Whole Foods stores it just acquired. But the Cornerstone analysis noted that airlines and banks made similar assurances about job losses when they introduced check-in kiosks and ATMs respectively; in both industries, employment and wages have declined.
Advertisement
Cohen pointed to another historical analogy: telephone companies, which once employed armies of workers to service landlines across the country, saw employment numbers crash with the advent of wireless telecommunications.
The job loss projections have left many retail workers and the union that represents them apprehensive. While Chelsea Connor, spokeswoman for the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU), talked optimistically of the "massive boom in jobs in fulfillment and distribution" created by e-commerce, Cohen warned that those jobs were at risk of automation as well.
"It's not going to be very much longer in the future that robots are able to pick individual orders for customers," he said. Indeed, Amazon runs an annual robotics competition aimed at achieving that very goal.
Caleb Kulick, a cashier at a Shopko in Plover, Wisconsin, has accepted the automation of his job.
"There's no way to stop it," he said. "A Target in my town just switched over to self-checkouts, and suddenly a job which used to require four employees now only requires one."
"My real concern is what is going to replace those jobs, and so far there are no good answers ... No politician that I've heard of has any answers to these problems."
Marc Perronne, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union which represents 1.3m retail, grocery and food processing workers, said that the organization was working on helping its members go back to school to get high school equivalencies or associate's degrees, with an eye on technological job displacement.
"People generally look at technology as a good thing, and I look at technology as a good thing, but when it comes to a point that many people are going to be put on the street ... I think as a society we have to start talking about it," Perrone said. "Our organization has decided that we're going to try to provide as much educational opportunity as we can to give them the tools for whatever comes next."
Still, not everyone is persuaded that the future will be as jobless as feared.
Brendan Witcher, an e-commerce analyst with Forrester, argued that the checkout-free store remains "a long way off". In December, Amazon said that Amazon Go would open to the public in "early 2017" a self-imposed deadline that the store has missed.
"It is an exciting concept. It was also an exciting concept when IBM introduced it in 2006," Witcher said, referring to a decade-old advertisement by IBM portraying a similar grab-and-go shopping experience.
Witcher said successful retailers would incorporate technologies that improve customer experiences rather than simply eliminate jobs.
But stores that simply transfer labor from employees to customers, like those that install the much-maligned self-checkout lanes, he said, are "really missing the point ... Smart retailers are using digital to make their associates better at their jobs, not eliminate their jobs."[url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/16/retail-industry-cashier-jobs-technology-unemployment#img-4][/url]
Witcher praised retailers in China who allow customers to use WeChat, a messaging app, to scan the items they want, show their phones and purchases to a retail associate, and then walk out the door. The process eliminates checkout lines, but keeps a human involved to prevent theft, all while freeing up employees to spend more time assisting customers.
It's those customer-oriented tasks that Alexis Lambertis, an organizer with RWDSU, argues will forestall too many job losses in retail. Lambertis worked for two years at New York City's Babeland, a sex toy boutique. Babeland is exactly the kind of brick-and-mortar shop that would seem imperiled by the privacy of online shopping. But Lambertis said she frequently served customers who had ordered sex toys online, only to be disappointed.
"They are coming in because they want someone's input They are looking to us as sources of knowledge and information," she said. "At the end of the day, you will always have people who are going to need help from a human. I've seen that everywhere.
"I've seen that in sex toy stores, where people will pick things up and have no idea how it works," she said. "And the same thing goes for window blinds."
Justin Kates
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/16/chicago-universal-basic-income-ubi/

Chicago is about to try this out... couldnt have happen to a better group of people! They just recent taxed the crap out of their properties. Now this... how long before Chicago becomes Detroit, lol.
-Justin Kates
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kite23 said:

Look at the trucking industry and see how many peripheral industry come off that occupation. Imagine driverless 18 wheelers. It'll be a huge loss to thousands of people who'd need a sum to live by.
Won't happen. The liability costs alone prevent it.
WILLIS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If proven far safer than a human, how do the liability costs not allow it to happen?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WILLIS said:

If proven far safer than a human, how do the liability costs not allow it to happen?
It cannot be proven to be "far safer than a human".

And there will always be lawyers who see the lack of human control to be the reason for any accidents.
Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

WILLIS said:

If proven far safer than a human, how do the liability costs not allow it to happen?
It cannot be proven to be "far safer than a human".

And there will always be lawyers who see the lack of human control to be the reason for any accidents.

Lawyers rely on expert witnesses who would argue that automated trucking is safer than humans.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

Oldbear83 said:

WILLIS said:

If proven far safer than a human, how do the liability costs not allow it to happen?
It cannot be proven to be "far safer than a human".

And there will always be lawyers who see the lack of human control to be the reason for any accidents.

Lawyers rely on expert witnesses who would argue that automated trucking is safer than humans.
Juries usually listen to their fears.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Taking economics out of it for a moment, people intrinsically need a purpose. One of the first topics every new introduction includes is one's occupation. It's part of who and what a human is. Without it, we've seen what can happen. People tend to flounder and take up unhealthy vices to fill the void.

Humans are rational insofar as they seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. With no purpose to provide pleasure of esteem, they will generally try and minimize the pain associated with lacking it.

From a psychological perspective, a universal income could be a disaster. There's a reason the only two groups who get anything like it and don't suffer issues are children and retirees.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Volunteer said:

PTGHUNTER said:



When that day comes is that not when we all join Star Fleet and boldly go where no man has gone before?
I definitely want a phaser.
I'm building my own photon torpedoes.


I am pretty sure that most of the cool advancements in technology you see in star trek will ultimately be used for porn, drugs, booze or some other type of immediate gratification. Think about it:

Replicator: Unlimited Drugs, Booze, Deep-fried snickers bars....nobody is using that thing for "tea-hot-earl gray"

Holodeck: Ain't nobody gonna dress up like pirates to experience sailing the seven seas. People would use the hell out of it and when they were done, the walls would look like a Jackson Pollock painting.

Cloaking Device: Peeping Tom's and criminals.

Transporter: Quick getaways.

Somebody once said, if they banned porn on the internet, there would only be one site left...www.bringbackporn.com. People have a really unique way of misusing useful technology.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.